Bert and Ernie share cuddly ‘Moment of Joy’ on The New Yorker’s DOMA cover

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Because the LDS Church had an official policy of political and financial support for a bill designed to put discrimination against gay people back into the law. Not really the same thing at all, and your weakest effort yet.

Originally Posted by Odysseus

except for black and Latino churches, which, for some strange reason, they avoided. Go figure.

If you had a choice between screaming at smiling jackasses at the Westwood LDS Temple or taking on a bunch of ghetto dwellers, which would you choose? But seriously, the LDS Church is singular corporation whereas congregational churches are a many headed monster.

Originally Posted by Odysseus

And, there are the various historical figures that the activists are now trying to convince us were gay, such as Abraham Lincoln.

And? If there were not a culture of discrimination, then we would know who was and who wasn't. Every culture and subculture has villains and heros. I've noticed that a lot of biographies of people who would like to be seen as quintessentially American mention a grandparent's ethnicity or minority religion.

Originally Posted by Odysseus

The majority owes the minority tolerance, but the minority owes the majority good will and a willingness to accept the societal norms that are in place.

That was a silly interpretation in a book that was easily discredited. Lincoln rode the legal circuit for a long time, and it was the custom at inns to sell a space in a bed, not a whole hotel room like we do today. Men often shared beds on that basis. It's always a problem when we interpret yesterday with today's attitudes and no context.

I agree with this only because this is how Moby Dick begins. Ishmael sharing a bed with Queequeg. Just sleeping space, no spooning.

You don't have to accept it. You can just ignore it. It doesn't have anything to do with you, does it?

Something occurred to me after I replied to this. The world is full of things that offend, but for some reason, the only people who are told to ignore them are those of us who aren't trying to overturn it. Why is that? Why do Progressives get to be offended, but not us? Why do we have to avert our eyes and pretend that the subversion of our culture isn't offensive to us, but Progressives can go berserk over the most minute indication of disagreement? Can you explain that?

Originally Posted by Novaheart

Because the LDS Church had an official policy of political and financial support for a bill designed to put discrimination against gay people back into the law. Not really the same thing at all, and your weakest effort yet.

Oh, hardly. If that's your excuse, then you are on thin ice. Lots of churches have doctrinal objections to homosexuality, especially the Catholic Church, but Latino Catholic churches were not attacked. Southern Baptists object to homosexuality, but black Baptists were left alone by the activists. LDS churches that were nowhere near California were targeted, while the people in the barrios and the ghettos who voted for Prop 8 were left alone. That's not ideology, that's cowardice.

Originally Posted by Novaheart

If you had a choice between screaming at smiling jackasses at the Westwood LDS Temple or taking on a bunch of ghetto dwellers, which would you choose? But seriously, the LDS Church is singular corporation whereas congregational churches are a many headed monster.

The bolded part is the closest that you've come to the truth about this. The gutless gaystapo went after the safe target, because the LDS guys were unlikely to get violent with them. It's the same reason that there's a Book of Mormon musical, but not a Qur'an Follies. Broadway knows that LDS members are going to turn the other cheek, while Muslims would cut their throats. There's a word for people who deliberately attack those who won't or can't fight back, and that's bullies.

Originally Posted by Novaheart

And? If there were not a culture of discrimination, then we would know who was and who wasn't. Every culture and subculture has villains and heros. I've noticed that a lot of biographies of people who would like to be seen as quintessentially American mention a grandparent's ethnicity or minority religion.

So, what you are saying is that since you were discriminated against, it's acceptable to falsify history? Nice ethical boundaries there. What other means are justified by your ends?

Originally Posted by Novaheart

I love being lectured on Americanism by people like you.

People like me, M'Lord? Shall I touch my forelock as I bow myself out of the room, or would a simple raised middle finger suffice? Get used to be lectured on Americanism, Nova, because "people like [me]" have an appreciation for it that you sadly lack.

I think Bert and Ernie being gay is a joke. I've heard a number of jokes about gay people over the years. Some are amusing, others aren't. However, the "mistaken for gay " has been a fairly standard comedic tool.

Even on the Golden Girls. Blanche thinks Dorothy wants her body. Speaking of which, some Italian doctor has announced the feasibility of a head (the one attached to your neck) transplant.

Oh, hardly. If that's your excuse, then you are on thin ice. Lots of churches have doctrinal objections to homosexuality, especially the Catholic Church, but Latino Catholic churches were not attacked. Southern Baptists object to homosexuality, but black Baptists were left alone by the activists. LDS churches that were nowhere near California were targeted, while the people in the barrios and the ghettos who voted for Prop 8 were left alone. That's not ideology, that's cowardice.

I'm really only aware of one church being "attacked" and that was the Westwood LDS temple. For me to comment on anything else, I would need specifics. In any event, the HRC didn't order it or organize it. They are not only incompetent, they are useless. Their idea of a response to an attack on the gay community is a candlelight vigil or similar stupid shit.

And of course if the people in LA had chose a Catholic Church or a synagogue, you'd be OK with that.

Originally Posted by Odysseus

So, what you are saying is that since you were discriminated against, it's acceptable to falsify history?

History comes to us in multiple ways. Historians , true academics, do not declare that a matter is settled so much as it is the most likely explanation of events.

Let's take Thomas Jefferson and Sally Heming. There are those who are absolutely convinced that TJ and SH made babies. They won't hear another version, and if you try to reason with them, then they accuse you of caring too much such that your own racism is clear. You simply can't accept that a noble man would stoop so low. I prefer to think that my objections to the popular version of history in this regard, is based in the much better established character of Thomas Jefferson, the inconclusive science, and the timeline.

But there is "best evidence" in the case of Jefferson, isn't there? There are contemporary accusations of his relationship with his slave woman. Contemporary accounts are usually given great weight but there is politics to consider in this case, right?

There is always politics to consider. I, naturally, would hope that President Lincoln was not homosexual. Were he a homosexual, then it would have been a homosexual who is responsible for ripping up the voluntary association of the sovereign states, destroying the Constitution as it had been known, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. But given the times, I wouldn't have expected him to announce to the world that he was gay. So historians who think he might be, would look for clues about that. This is no different than looking for obscure information about any historical figure, except that it is of great interest to the living persons who are only now seeing discrimination against gay people legally dispensed with.